Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

the_scotsman wrote:
I'm going to want SOME KIND of clear distinction between regiment A and regiment B

Sure, got no issues with this.

My own force is organized as a batallion (as in a fluff batallion, not the detachment-kind);
1st company - Super Heavies (Baneblades and a Shadowsword)
2nd company - tanks (Vanquishers and Battletanks)
3rd company - mechanized infantry
4th company - disbanded due to heavy losses (was mechanized) (in reality I just don't want to buy more stuff)
5th company - specialist vehicles like Destroyer Tank Hunters, Thunderers, Demolishers and Hydras
6th company - (exists only on paper) support vehicles like trojans and atlases. Maybe I'll actually buy some now that they're not totally useless.

Now, on the table top it should be easy enough to remember that all Leman Russes are in the 2nd company (spearhead detachment, probably?) while chimeras and infantry belong to the 3rd company. 1st company only comes in to play in larger games - they've been collecting dust since 5th edition.
All vehicles have tactical numbers, starting with the company number, then platoon ("squadron") number, and then it's individual number. So tank 211 would be 2nd company, 1st platoon, tank 1.

Would you object if the tanks from 2nd company were fielded as a detatchment with the Cadian regimental doctrine, while the Chimeras and infantry in 3rd company were fielded with the Armageddon doctrine? Other than tactical numbering, all tanks have the same camo scheme.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Also don't see how it's not technically WYSIWYG you see black templars painted as black templars with black templar markings you have black templars.

WYSIWYG is not some absolute rule to be prioritized above all else, it's a means to an end: ensuring that there's no ambiguity about which models on the table have which rules. If you have a 10-man squad with one melta gun and one missile launcher you need to be able to identify which model has which weapon and where you need to measure range from, without any debate over it or room to cheat by picking whichever model is most convenient every time you shoot. But something like a tiny symbol on a shoulder pad? That has no practical value. It isn't helping you identify which model is which, because it's invisibly tiny at normal tabletop distances and to all but the most careful of observers looks no different from a non-Cadian model with a similar paint scheme. The only reason to enforce WYSIWYG that strictly is as a weapon for bludgeoning your opponent into complying with your paranoia about "powergamers".

You have Cadians painted as Cadians will Ciadian transfers then you are playing Cadia.

You keep ignoring the fact that there are many Cadian regiments which are best represented with other rules. If you're going to count rivets at least get it right.

What I find absurd is how upset people get when you say "I'm choosing not to play this way you can still play however you want". The fact that the way i choose to act in a hypothetical situation is so offensive to people on Dakka is absolutely absurd to me haha.

Again, "it's just my preference" is not an excuse for bad behavior. Nor does it mean that your preference deserves any respect, or is based on anything but ignorance about the fluff and paranoia about "powergamers".

(And really, it's pretty amusing how you talk so much about how you hate "powergamers" but spend all this time obsessing over small variations in army power level. If winning doesn't really matter then why is it so important to force your opponent to use a weaker set of rules? Just accept that they're using whatever rules they tell you they're using and play the game. But I suspect that, like most of the "casual at all costs" crowd, you really do care about winning, you just don't want to have to get better at the game to be able to win.)

See what I find confusing is that everywhere I have ever played at nobody would try to play Black Templars as Salamanders. This is regardless that technically Black templars could be Salamanders with your definition of WYSIWYG. Technically having black armor with crosses has no functional distinction between having green armor with the Salamander logo. Technically if both have a bolter what is the difference? The difference to me is those two chapters have their own rules sets and when you pick that specific chapter you use those rules. Id refer to this more as "Spirit of the Game" but technically to me it could also be classified as WYSIWYG as clearly you see Black Templars you should play Black Templars.

I find it funny that now somehow I'm caring about "winning" the game by wanting models to represent what they are. If you go back and read my posts im clear about what im looking for in a game. Obviously, the number one goal of the game is fun followed by things like immersion, narrative and so on and on. Part of the reason why I would refuse to play games with someone who has chosen to call his black templars salamanders a week after a codex drop where it was never an issue before that his guys were Black Templars, is because of my thoughts on why he did this. I have a limited number of games I can play and am looking to have the most fun possible in said games. So when choosing an opponent why would i play against the guy who seems to care so much about every single small statistical advantage he can squeeze out of an army that he's willing to play the wrong codex entre then the army was clearly meant for when created (ie obviously Black Templars, not Salamanders). To me this guy is just looking for different things then i am in a game. I really don't care if I win or lose a game (i ran an all goblin army list for like 4 generations of WHFB regardless of power level) but i do care about giving myself the highest chance of having the game that's going to give me the most fun so im looking for things like (nice opponent, painted army for immersion, if i get lucky some good backstory and even narrating of the game ect). So why play the guy that's running his Black Templars as Salamanders when i can go play the guy using UM as UM. I don't know which game i might win i dont know there exact build and strategy all i know is that the guy playing his army as what is, most likely has a higher chance of looking for the same things in a game as i am and thus there is a better chance im going to have a fun time.

Panzergraf wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
I'm going to want SOME KIND of clear distinction between regiment A and regiment B

Sure, got no issues with this.

My own force is organized as a batallion (as in a fluff batallion, not the detachment-kind);
1st company - Super Heavies (Baneblades and a Shadowsword)
2nd company - tanks (Vanquishers and Battletanks)
3rd company - mechanized infantry
4th company - disbanded due to heavy losses (was mechanized) (in reality I just don't want to buy more stuff)
5th company - specialist vehicles like Destroyer Tank Hunters, Thunderers, Demolishers and Hydras
6th company - (exists only on paper) support vehicles like trojans and atlases. Maybe I'll actually buy some now that they're not totally useless.

Now, on the table top it should be easy enough to remember that all Leman Russes are in the 2nd company (spearhead detachment, probably?) while chimeras and infantry belong to the 3rd company. 1st company only comes in to play in larger games - they've been collecting dust since 5th edition.
All vehicles have tactical numbers, starting with the company number, then platoon ("squadron") number, and then it's individual number. So tank 211 would be 2nd company, 1st platoon, tank 1.

Would you object if the tanks from 2nd company were fielded as a detatchment with the Cadian regimental doctrine, while the Chimeras and infantry in 3rd company were fielded with the Armageddon doctrine? Other than tactical numbering, all tanks have the same camo scheme.

I would not object. In fact, I'd ask if you meant to make a composite regiment/battalion made of different companies from different homeworlds, as the organization you've picked is so unique for the guard that it's probably fluffy, on the other hand.

My organization, while similar (divided into companies based on role) will be using the same homeworld doctrine whether it's Atlases, the regimental command group, the reserve tank crews, or the superheavy tanks themselves, because they're all from the same training structure.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Not necessarily, no. If you relied on the standard Cadian models because that's what's readily available and suits better than Catachans, I'd just consider if it's a particularly Valhallan colour scheme. Probably could've been clearer about that originally. IT's about the paintjob, not so much the models.

If it was Valhallans one week, Cadians the next, then Tallarns because of some perceived advantage to you, then no.

What would define a suitably Valhallan paint job? What about Vostroyan or Mordian? Is there a minimum deviance from the base Cadian paint scheme necessary to not be Cadian? What if the regiment has a colour similar to an official regiment but they're based on your own custom fluff?

What if I was playing a custom regiment and I wished to try out all the regimental doctrines before settling on one and therefore needed to mix up what doctrines I was using for a few weeks? Is there an amount of games I'd be allowed for each doctrine?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I would not object. In fact, I'd ask if you meant to make a composite regiment/battalion made of different companies from different homeworlds, as the organization you've picked is so unique for the guard that it's probably fluffy, on the other hand.

They're all supposed to be from the same planet; Arborea. I used to field 2nd company as an Armored Company (there were Imperial Armor/Chapter Approved lists for this) and 3rd as regular guard with the Mechanized doctrine, back in the day, so each force got its own set of buffs and special rules, not too unlike the doctrines, orders and stratagems in our upcoming codex. Organization is loosely based on the armored batallion I served in when I was in the army, though obviously we didn't have Baneblades.

Problem is what is the Cadian camo scheme? In older Codexs it was shown that they use multiple different color schemes for camouflage. Add to the advent people use and make reproductions of the armor and weaponry for their own regiments muddles everything.


[img]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/0a/7a/7a/0a7a7af1dc9ee22262d7550e7eb3b85e.jpg
[/img]
This a Cadian regiment but has a different color scheme, and it's from a codex.

Panzergraf wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I would not object. In fact, I'd ask if you meant to make a composite regiment/battalion made of different companies from different homeworlds, as the organization you've picked is so unique for the guard that it's probably fluffy, on the other hand.

They're all supposed to be from the same planet; Arborea. I used to field 2nd company as an Armored Company (there were Imperial Armor/Chapter Approved lists for this) and 3rd as regular guard with the Mechanized doctrine, back in the day, so each force got its own set of buffs and special rules, not too unlike the doctrines, orders and stratagems in our upcoming codex. Organization is loosely based on the armored batallion I served in when I was in the army, though obviously we didn't have Baneblades.

I didn't mean planet, I meant regiment type. The IG doesn't allow mechanized infantry and armour (and artillery and whatnot) to be in the same regimental structure (though they are always mixed in practice when the regiments arrive at the front). It's how you end up with Artillery Regiments, Air Defense Regiments, etc. - combined arms isn't at the regimental scale usually.

That said, composite regiments exist under various headings (Krieg siege regiments are an example) so it's just the way things usually are, not the way things actually are! More power to anyone who wants to run a mixed formation.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Not necessarily, no. If you relied on the standard Cadian models because that's what's readily available and suits better than Catachans, I'd just consider if it's a particularly Valhallan colour scheme. Probably could've been clearer about that originally. IT's about the paintjob, not so much the models.

If it was Valhallans one week, Cadians the next, then Tallarns because of some perceived advantage to you, then no.

What would define a suitably Valhallan paint job? What about Vostroyan or Mordian? Is there a minimum deviance from the base Cadian paint scheme necessary to not be Cadian? What if the regiment has a colour similar to an official regiment but they're based on your own custom fluff?

What if I was playing a custom regiment and I wished to try out all the regimental doctrines before settling on one and therefore needed to mix up what doctrines I was using for a few weeks? Is there an amount of games I'd be allowed for each doctrine?

God, you people just have to REALIZE that paint is part of THE FLUFF. If a model with the cadian plastics doesn't have a >= 35% R to BY ratio in their paint scheme, they CANNOT, by WYSIWYG, be vostroyan.

This is why I enforce these standards uniformly. If you run a Repulsor tank but dont paint the "you must be this tall to ride this ride" sign by the door, its not wysiwyg. If you run the new Mortarion model and don't paint the official "Property of Kaldor Draigo" tramp stamp on him, he's not wysiwyg.

the_scotsman wrote:
If you run the new Mortarion model and don't paint the official "Property of Kaldor Draigo" tramp stamp on him, he's not wysiwyg.

Please tell me someone has done this.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Not necessarily, no. If you relied on the standard Cadian models because that's what's readily available and suits better than Catachans, I'd just consider if it's a particularly Valhallan colour scheme. Probably could've been clearer about that originally. IT's about the paintjob, not so much the models.

If it was Valhallans one week, Cadians the next, then Tallarns because of some perceived advantage to you, then no.

What would define a suitably Valhallan paint job? What about Vostroyan or Mordian? Is there a minimum deviance from the base Cadian paint scheme necessary to not be Cadian? What if the regiment has a colour similar to an official regiment but they're based on your own custom fluff?

What if I was playing a custom regiment and I wished to try out all the regimental doctrines before settling on one and therefore needed to mix up what doctrines I was using for a few weeks? Is there an amount of games I'd be allowed for each doctrine?

Icy colour pallets, that sort of thing. But if you're fielding a single regiment, knock yourself out with whatevs. The issue comes when Detachments A, B C and D all have identical uniforms, but happen to be different Regiments. That's just lazy.

As for finding your feet? Honestly, that depends entirely upon whether you're a tool or not. Let's be honest, as gamers we know when someone is taking the piss.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
John,

You introduced the jump-pack analogy - now you're changing.

No, I clearly wrote: "I won't accept a canonical SM chapter playing as a different one, either"

To me, it's the same. A Dread is a Dread, and a Tacmarine is a Tacmarine. But once you put on the BA bitz and paint, you can't say it's DA or UM.

I've been playing 40k since 2E, and I know pretty well what the various IG Regiments look like. If you have Mordian models, painted as such, then they're Mordians. If you have DKoK, painted as such, then they're DKoK. Telling me that Catachan models are actually Mordians in "Parade Dress" is going to sit poorly with me. .

Okay, so, by that token I assume all of your models are official and you do not accept any 3rd party guard armies. If you're going to be that hard line about official model representation you should at least be consistent about it.

OK, dude, go look at my gallery and plog and see for yourself.

Go on, take your time...

I own roughly 200 GW Citadel metal Imperial Guardsmen alone, mostly Tallarn, but with a smattering of metal Cadians and Regimental models. I have a couple dozen GW Imperial Guard vehicles. I have no problem whastoever finding an "official" GW Imperial Guard army of a wide variety of configurations. And I can add to that with my allied Knight, Sisters, Inquisition forces, etc. ALL using the official GW models.

I don't have to worry about 3rd party Guard armies at all.

That said, if the player were cool, unlike you, I'd probably let it slide. But if he were some kind of tool, then no.

And even if he were cool, if he started about playing a full iconography BA army as DA or UM, you bet I'd be giving him gak about it.

Awww, I'm not cool? That's a real shame. I ask for consistency in your argument and I'm not cool. And here we go again with the Chapter proxy red herring. I ask you, on what grounds do you not like an army using rules that aren't 100% consistent with how it's painted/what models it uses?

My argument is 111% consistent.

If any army is obviously converted and painted as BA, then that's what it is. If played as anything else, then it is a proxy army, simple as that. I prefer not to play against proxy armies.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Icy colour pallets, that sort of thing. But if you're fielding a single regiment, knock yourself out with whatevs. The issue comes when Detachments A, B C and D all have identical uniforms, but happen to be different Regiments. That's just lazy.

As for finding your feet? Honestly, that depends entirely upon whether you're a tool or not. Let's be honest, as gamers we know when someone is taking the piss.

This is what I'm driving at. Most sensible people in this thread would either run their army as one regiment, or at the very least, clearly mark or have obvious distinctions if they're running multiple regimental doctrines. Your general sentiment towards the whole thing seems to boil down to the person across from you, not some sort RAW or anal retentive attention to detail and lore strictness or paint scheme.

As an example for myself, I'd probably trial all of the doctrines a few times before settling one or two I like. I also tend to run either a mechanized/armoured list, or a foot/arty list, which would lean towards two very different doctrines. If I was facing you, I'd probably announce I brought my mech Guard and will be using the Armageddon rules for my custom Guard, or I'd roll up my foot/arty force and announce I'll be using the Mordian rules. In either case, it'd be clear and simple, and the fluff would match the doctrine. I'd wager most people in this thread will play along similar lines (or fielding multiple regiments, like an armoured company of Tallarn and a foot company of Mordian) and I'd further wager a majority of opponents wouldn't have an issue.

My regiment doesn't look like any of the 8, so as far as I'm concerned I'm good. It's pretty clear GW feels the same way, they've gone out of their way to show kitbashed regiments that don't have any parallels to the 8, even showing cadian re-colors. Recolors are the ultimate heresy for people that want to force their opponents into specific chapter tactics/regiment doctrines so I think that whole group is out of luck.

I get it's annoying to see someone repaint their blood angels as ultramarines, but some arbitrary, impossible to fully enforce, only relevant in 20% of situations is never going to fly. How the hell would you even start enforcing it with factions like tyranids? Or Tau? At best you could start making random rules based on coloration, but then some guy goes Fuchsia and your whole house of cards collapses before his colorful might.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
John,

You introduced the jump-pack analogy - now you're changing.

No, I clearly wrote: "I won't accept a canonical SM chapter playing as a different one, either"

To me, it's the same. A Dread is a Dread, and a Tacmarine is a Tacmarine. But once you put on the BA bitz and paint, you can't say it's DA or UM.

I've been playing 40k since 2E, and I know pretty well what the various IG Regiments look like. If you have Mordian models, painted as such, then they're Mordians. If you have DKoK, painted as such, then they're DKoK. Telling me that Catachan models are actually Mordians in "Parade Dress" is going to sit poorly with me. .

Okay, so, by that token I assume all of your models are official and you do not accept any 3rd party guard armies. If you're going to be that hard line about official model representation you should at least be consistent about it.

OK, dude, go look at my gallery and plog and see for yourself.

Go on, take your time...

I own roughly 200 GW Citadel metal Imperial Guardsmen alone, mostly Tallarn, but with a smattering of metal Cadians and Regimental models. I have a couple dozen GW Imperial Guard vehicles. I have no problem whastoever finding an "official" GW Imperial Guard army of a wide variety of configurations. And I can add to that with my allied Knight, Sisters, Inquisition forces, etc. ALL using the official GW models.

I don't have to worry about 3rd party Guard armies at all.

That said, if the player were cool, unlike you, I'd probably let it slide. But if he were some kind of tool, then no.

And even if he were cool, if he started about playing a full iconography BA army as DA or UM, you bet I'd be giving him gak about it.

Awww, I'm not cool? That's a real shame. I ask for consistency in your argument and I'm not cool. And here we go again with the Chapter proxy red herring. I ask you, on what grounds do you not like an army using rules that aren't 100% consistent with how it's painted/what models it uses?

My argument is 111% consistent.

If any army is obviously converted and painted as BA, then that's what it is. If played as anything else, then it is a proxy army, simple as that. I prefer not to play against proxy armies.

So, if someone showed up with Cadian miniatures painted in red/green with no markings and wanted to play them with Cadian rules would you deny them? Because, obviously they are using a proxy army.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If any army is obviously converted and painted as BA, then that's what it is. If played as anything else, then it is a proxy army, simple as that. I prefer not to play against proxy armies.

Are we to understand that you would play a game against the first of these models, but not against any of the others?

The BA thing also collapses if I bring in, say, a successor Chapter. Especially the time-honored question of what rules to use for Lamenters (who at one point did not suffer the Black Rage, and are codex compliant, meaning using the vanilla codex or the BA codex would be equally valid).

All about reasonable WYSIWYG.

If, as in the pictorial example above, your army is comprised of different colour schemes to represent different regiments, then fair dos. I've got an immediate visual cue as to what's what. That puts my target priority challenge on me and me alone.

In short, I shouldn't have to be asking you for reminders on a unit by unit basis each turn.

Astartes are broadly a different matter, as I can often tell by the equipment what's what.

But with something as sprawling as an IG army, it's simply not fair for me to have to constantly ask or guess exactly which regiment it is that's holding each objective etc.

Yep, what Mad Doc said.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Not necessarily, no. If you relied on the standard Cadian models because that's what's readily available and suits better than Catachans, I'd just consider if it's a particularly Valhallan colour scheme. Probably could've been clearer about that originally. IT's about the paintjob, not so much the models.
If it was Valhallans one week, Cadians the next, then Tallarns because of some perceived advantage to you, then no.

What would define a suitably Valhallan paint job? What about Vostroyan or Mordian? Is there a minimum deviance from the base Cadian paint scheme necessary to not be Cadian? What if the regiment has a colour similar to an official regiment but they're based on your own custom fluff?
What if I was playing a custom regiment and I wished to try out all the regimental doctrines before settling on one and therefore needed to mix up what doctrines I was using for a few weeks? Is there an amount of games I'd be allowed for each doctrine?

Icy colour pallets, that sort of thing. But if you're fielding a single regiment, knock yourself out with whatevs. The issue comes when Detachments A, B C and D all have identical uniforms, but happen to be different Regiments. That's just lazy.
As for finding your feet? Honestly, that depends entirely upon whether you're a tool or not. Let's be honest, as gamers we know when someone is taking the piss.

Because Valhallans are never deployed anywhere that isn't permanently snowbound? Or because you think they keep the white coats and whitewashed vehicles even after the snow thaws?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formerly Wu wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If any army is obviously converted and painted as BA, then that's what it is. If played as anything else, then it is a proxy army, simple as that. I prefer not to play against proxy armies.

Are we to understand that you would play a game against the first of these models, but not against any of the others?

Or are we going to insist that they must be cadian, valhallan, catachan, tallarn, armageddon? (left to right)

Again, it's about reasonable WYSIWYG.

So for the hard of understanding, one last time, from the top.

Taking multiple detachments, each a different regiment, when they all have the same paint scheme, is a dick move.

They could all be in desert fatigues, or ice world camo, standard Cadian colours or incredibly bright neon, and it would still be a dick move.

Why? Because you gain a tangible advantage in doing that, and you intentionally place me at a disadvantage when it comes to effective target priority. Have I targeted the Catachan Leman Russ, or the Vostroyan one? Are those Cadians holding the objective I'm after, or Catachans? Who can tell? Not me, because they're all painted the same.

Mixing regiments isn't the issue.

Not using the exact precise models isn't the issue.

The exact scheme you've chosen for each regiment isn't the issue.

The issue is having an army comprised of multiple regiments with no visual way for me to tell them apart is the problem.

I wouldn't accept that from a Marine player, where his army is all painted Blood Angels, expect units X Y and Z are in fact Dark Angels - because in the heat of battle it's likely I won't know what I'm actually shooting at.

I wouldn't accept that from a Chaos player, where the army is painted as Black Legion, except for units A B and C which are actually say, Word Bearers - because in the heat of battle it's likely I won't know what I'm actually shooting at.

Whichever way you butter it, having a single army colour scheme representing multiple Chapters/Regiments/Legions/Klans/Craftworld/Hive Fleets/Cabals/Forgeworlds/[i]whatever puts me at a tactical disadvantage simply not intended nor allowe for by the rules.

They're there to add flavour to your armies, and maybe give you a theme to build it round. It's not there for you (royal you, not you specifically) to shift and slide around between opponents to extract maximum advantage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's exactly the same principle as proxy heavy weapons.

Now, I don't mind your Heavy Bolters being Lascannons in this specific game. May be you just fancied a change, maybe you're experimenting for your next purchase. Doesn't really bother me.

But....when two are Lascannon, that one is an Autocannon, those three are Missile Launchers and the rest are Heavy Bolters, that's where I draw the line. Because, in the heat of battle, it's neither fair nor reasonable to expect me to keep tabs on what's what.

 Formerly Wu wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If any army is obviously converted and painted as BA, then that's what it is. If played as anything else, then it is a proxy army, simple as that. I prefer not to play against proxy armies.

Are we to understand that you would play a game against the first of these models, but not against any of the others?

That's not what I said. I said that a guy bringing this to the table as anything but Catachans would be a proxy army.

And they sure as feth aren't Mordians in "Parade Dress".

So, by that reasoning, anyone who didn't paint/model their Cadians in the official manner couldn't use their regimental doctrine. That kind of hardline modelling enforcement cuts both ways, John.

Its clear that the intended choice GW wants you to make is to buy all new models for your power hungry army collection by offering Malibu Stacy with a new hat...

You Guard players just got Primaris'd!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
All 3 of my current armies have taken drastic revamps in 8th edition. My Death Guard are all old metals, My Custom Chapter White Scars bike army has to be played as Salamanders now, and my Orks are all painted in different Clan colors which is gonna be a nightmare when their Codex comes out next year.

They don't want you playing your old stuff as new stuff.
This is also why we will see more easy fit monopose kits rather than multi part bitz boxes.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
So, by that reasoning, anyone who didn't paint/model their Cadians in the official manner couldn't use their regimental doctrine. That kind of hardline modelling enforcement cuts both ways, John.

That's.....that's not what either of us are arguing?

Like. At all.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Formerly Wu wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If any army is obviously converted and painted as BA, then that's what it is. If played as anything else, then it is a proxy army, simple as that. I prefer not to play against proxy armies.

Are we to understand that you would play a game against the first of these models, but not against any of the others?

That's not what I said. I said that a guy bringing this to the table as anything but Catachans would be a proxy army.

And they sure as feth aren't Mordians in "Parade Dress".

Actually by the new codex pictures on page 12 in this discussion they could be Armageddon Ork Hunters pretty easily, and it's not clarified what rules they would use, I could see it going either way since they're jungle fighters, but they still come from Armageddon which has feth loads of vehicles and the experience of being trained by the Steel Legion when it was first created as per the fluff.

I'll say it again since it keeps coming up, comparing Space Marine armor to Imperial Guard armor are not the same thing. Under no circumstances would a BA wear BT colors; if they did they come across BT gear they have organic support to modify and repaint armor in fluff and the psycho-indoctrination to compel them to, even assuming pride lets them take it. There's a whole spiel in the Beast Arises series where IF descendant chapters have to dress up as normal IF, and they hate it- and they are still descendants of the IF!! Imagine what a BA would do if they were told to wear SW armor... effectively they have the luxury to be snobs because they have access to the best, and no matter what they wear the power armor provides a similiar level of protection to the environment.

IG are human recuits, I doubt many regiments would complain if they received better equipment. In the real world do you think if a country bought DPM camo their soldiers would say: "Nah, I can't wear this- I'll look too British!". I doubt it. Also remember that guard armor is bad and sometimes they wouldn't have the luxury of choice. Would a Cadian/Catachan/any normal human being just see a trench coat and say: "golly, I'm cold but I certainly can't put that on because it is too Steel Legion, guess I'll just freeze to death."? Speaking of salvage we know it is allowed to certain levels, the Savlar Chem Dogs prove this, so what happens if a regiment of chem dogs come across far better Krieg gear once all those DK do their suicide assault? It is completely fluffy and reasonable to have IG regiments in the equipment and colors of another one, while not fluffy for a BA to wear DA painted armor for example.

edited some obvious grammar issues

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
So, by that reasoning, anyone who didn't paint/model their Cadians in the official manner couldn't use their regimental doctrine. That kind of hardline modelling enforcement cuts both ways, John.

That's.....that's not what either of us are arguing?

Like. At all.

John states that if you paint/use certain models you can only use certain rules. He constantly cites Space Marines as an example of certain paintjobs demanding certain rules. Extrapolating on that, that means that only certain paint jobs /modelling choices can use certain rules. Meaning that unless you paint/model your models a certain way you can't use those rules. Otherwise it's also proxying.

I don't think it really matters unless you're trying to run two different regiments in the same army, in which case things MUST be painted differently in order to make it clear which unit belongs to which regiment. This can be as simple as painting the rim of the base differently for infantry models but can be more complicated to do for vehicles.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Again, it's about reasonable WYSIWYG.

So for the hard of understanding, one last time, from the top.

Taking multiple detachments, each a different regiment, when they all have the same paint scheme, is a dick move.

They could all be in desert fatigues, or ice world camo, standard Cadian colours or incredibly bright neon, and it would still be a dick move.

Why? Because you gain a tangible advantage in doing that, and you intentionally place me at a disadvantage when it comes to effective target priority. Have I targeted the Catachan Leman Russ, or the Vostroyan one? Are those Cadians holding the objective I'm after, or Catachans? Who can tell? Not me, because they're all painted the same.

Mixing regiments isn't the issue.

Not using the exact precise models isn't the issue.

The exact scheme you've chosen for each regiment isn't the issue.

The issue is having an army comprised of multiple regiments with no visual way for me to tell them apart is the problem.

I wouldn't accept that from a Marine player, where his army is all painted Blood Angels, expect units X Y and Z are in fact Dark Angels - because in the heat of battle it's likely I won't know what I'm actually shooting at.

I wouldn't accept that from a Chaos player, where the army is painted as Black Legion, except for units A B and C which are actually say, Word Bearers - because in the heat of battle it's likely I won't know what I'm actually shooting at.

Whichever way you butter it, having a single army colour scheme representing multiple Chapters/Regiments/Legions/Klans/Craftworld/Hive Fleets/Cabals/Forgeworlds/[i]whatever puts me at a tactical disadvantage simply not intended nor allowe for by the rules.

They're there to add flavour to your armies, and maybe give you a theme to build it round. It's not there for you (royal you, not you specifically) to shift and slide around between opponents to extract maximum advantage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's exactly the same principle as proxy heavy weapons.

Now, I don't mind your Heavy Bolters being Lascannons in this specific game. May be you just fancied a change, maybe you're experimenting for your next purchase. Doesn't really bother me.

But....when two are Lascannon, that one is an Autocannon, those three are Missile Launchers and the rest are Heavy Bolters, that's where I draw the line. Because, in the heat of battle, it's neither fair nor reasonable to expect me to keep tabs on what's what.

Apologies for dragging this out, but I have a couple of questions to make sure I understand your position. There is one aspect of what you are saying that throws me a little.

Lets say I have two detachments of Imperial Guard infantry and both are using Cadian models. I paint them differently. I say that one detachment is Cadian and the other is Catachan. Are we cool to play?

Assuming that we had the game, what if the next week I have the same models but this time I play one group as Armageddon and the other as Valhallan. I explain it up front. Are we still cool to play?

Thanks for your patience,

Iain

I mean, obviously anyone who wants to use all the rules from the fifty fething dollar rule book they bought is clearly a power gamer. That's why I refuse to play anyone who buys new models. If they weren't waaac tfgs they'd just use the minis they already have.